Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Sort:
DiogenesDue
noodles2112 wrote:

Oceans of mercury????!!!. Where do they get that from, oh yeah, the planet Mercury 

uranium comes from Uranus and plutonium comes from Pluto

No, no oceans of mercury on Mercury.

Elroch
noodles2112 wrote:

Elroch - what map are you referring to as there are many maps and the constellations were mapped out long before heliocentric theory came along which usurped science replacing it with pseudoscience. 

I am talking about a map of the sky that has stars that are near to each other near to each other. The same way maps generally work.

If you want to get the distances between stars to be proportional to the angles between the stars in the sky, you are limited to a spherical map - like printing the stars on the surface of a ball where the Earth would be at the centire - but the main point is that you CANNOT distort the distances in any way that retains proximity without CUTTING the representation of the sky.

If this is all too difficult for you, there is a hemisphere of stars that lie above the celestial equator - the region where the planets and the Sun and Moon are found. There is another hemisphere of stars that lie below the celestial equator (these are the stars that are visible everywhere in the Southern hemisphere).  When you join these two hemispheres together (they share the celestial equator) you get a topological sphere.

In the fantasy flat Earth world - the one you believe in - there would be no problem at all with having a flat map of the stars "above" the Earth, because you can't see "under" the Earth.  No flat Earther has ever produced such a map with all the stars on it, because it is impossible. None of them are bright enough to realise that means they are wrong.

Still too difficult?

Let me present this in an alternative way.  In your fantasy world, there is a circular edge to the distribution of stars we can see, right?

There is no such edge when you piece together what people see from different locations - the stars just keep on going until you have gone all the way round the sky and come back to where you started.

Again, perfectly clear to me but, with all due respect, probably beyond you.

But here is a map of the ENTIRE sky that you can rotate. It is designed to be used in a location so parts of it are darkened, but the constellations are still there. And it is a spherical distribution of stars, of course. The North pole of this sphere is near the North Star, Polaris. To help you navigate, this is the bright star at the end of Ursa Minor, and it will stay still in the map as the sky rotates around it.

The South Pole is in the region of the sky that is the apex of the Southern hemisphere sky.

It's somewhere near this guy on the map (you will see the sky rotates around a point near this guy, as people in the Southern hemisphere see.

noodles2112

Elroch -  are you under the assumption, if the earth was flat, every single star in the sky would be visible from anywhere on the face-of-the-earth? 

RoobieRoo

perhaps NASA has hacked Elrochs eyes?

RoobieRoo

anyway Feynman explains it excellently, i love this guy too much, he knows there are levels of understanding and his use of analogy is amazing.

noodles2112

NASA hijacks peoples minds. 

noodles2112

"Space Satellites" attached to helium balloons are falling from the sky. Even MSM cannot cover it up!

cletejohnsburg

Periodically 

Elroch

Thousands of satellites also land every day at major airports. We've all seen them.

Mind you, like noodles, I don't really believe in heavier-than-air flight, despite what they tell us. When jets take off they actually have very thin strings hanging from balloons supporting them.

Can you approve my membership of the Bedlam Flat Earth Society now, noodles?

CesilyaRansom

what is this thread for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?????????????????????????????

Elroch
noodles2112 wrote:

Elroch -  are you under the assumption, if the earth was flat, every single star in the sky would be visible from anywhere on the face-of-the-earth? 

I am aware that in the context of the two facts

  • the stars appear to rotate as a rigid sphere from anywhere
  • all the angles between stars are fixed over historical timescales (to within a second of arc)

the fact that one pole is seen permanently fixed in the sky for anywhere in one hemisphere and the other pole is permanently fixed in the sky for anywhere in the other hemisphere refutes your beliefs very simply.

I keep trying to find something that is simple enough for you to understand, but maybe not even this meets that criterion.

noodles2112

Elroch - so let me get this straight. 

Two stationary stars on the opposite sides of the ball earth with the other stars/planets circling each star. Do they circle these stationary stars clockwise/counterclockwise east/west north/south or both and which stars/planets belong to each stationary star? 

Sorry if that is confusing but I am confusedwink.png

In another area of stars(which I think we agree are and have been fixed for 1000's of years/since the beginning of time) if indeed the earth is zooming through space in all kinds of directions at all kinds of incomprehensible speeds then it would be impossible for the constellations to remain fixed/same spot in the sky day in and day out. They would be scattered Helter-Skelter everyday/night. 

 

Elroch

It's an observational fact that the stars appear just like a rigid sphere - virtually fixed angles between them. The reason the stars appear stationery relative to each other is that they are very far away and MOVE VERY SLOWLY compared to their distances (contrary to your claim). So slowly you can ignore it.

Unfortunately, you seem to have poor spatial understanding, so even this may not be simple to you.

[For those with an interest in the real world - you can ignore this, noodles - the star that has the fastest apparent motion in the sky is Barnard's star, which move 10 arc seconds per year. This means that in a mere 360 years it will have shifted its angular position about as far as the angular diameter of the Moon.   

Other stars that move a bit slower have changed the constellations a little in historical times].

 

noodles2112

I think you are referring to stellar parallax or the lack thereof. 

So stars are observed to be light years away. That's the story your sticking 2wink.png

noodles2112

So what's up with these "space satellites" crashing to earth attached to helium balloons!

Any thoughts on that? 

Elroch

Have you been getting your news from unaccountable social media sources again?

No source of factual information has said such a ridiculous thing.

noodles2112

Are you kidding me. I go direct to the MSM for this stuff. News stations worldwide are reporting on it. One US news station claimed one was a Chinese spy satellite and it was shot down over Montana. 

You can't make this stuff upwink.png

Elroch
noodles2112 wrote:

I think you are referring to stellar parallax or the lack thereof. 

No. While this does allow measurement of distances to stars, I was referring solely to the fact that the constellations stay basically the same over time and location (except for the subset that can be seen - a feature characteristic of the ball-shaped Earth).

Are you not even aware of the bold fact?

Elroch
noodles2112 wrote:

Are you kidding me. I go direct to the MSM for this stuff. News stations worldwide are reporting on it. One US news station claimed one was a Chinese spy satellite and it was shot down over Montana. 

I don't believe you.

You can't make this stuff up

I can't. You just did.

 

noodles2112

Come on Elroch, you know I was taught heliocentrism in school/undergrad just as you and every single person on earth was. However, they did not teach it as a theory. 

Can you imagine if every teacher/professor told their students to prove heliocentrism via the scientific method in order to pass their course?

Everyone would flunk right out the window!